Before you get all critical on me, the only reason why I am refuting a point with bible verses, is because the bible is the source, and justification for the bigotry I am trying to destroy. Women deserve the right to do as they please with their bodies, according to their marital, financial, housing status, and all those very important considerations.

Furthermore, my purpose is strictly to point out to those who believe the bible is literal, that the bible refutes itself, and in doing so, nullifies its validity.

With that having been said, I’d also like to mention that I wouldn’t like to be in this situation; or, if I had a daughter, I wouldn’t want her to find herself in the situation to have to consider an abortion, but I certainly would want her to have the right to choose. I also don’t want to be labeled Pro-Choice. Have you ever seen those MRI exams? Speak with your kids about contraception. Pronto!

Six weeks old human fetus

According to the bible, god has assessed the right value to all unborn babies, even if you are a Christian, you probably didn’t know the following:

In Exodus 21:22-23 it’s stipulated that if an attack on a woman leads to a miscarriage the attacker must pay a fine. If he causes serious damage to the mother “you have to take life for life”. This implies that a fetus is not as valuable as a woman before the eyes of god.

In Leviticus 27:6 a price, yes, monetary value is assigned to a baby’s life, according to its age and gender. Babies under one month old are worthless.

In Numbers 5:21-22, 27-28 some magical potion given to the Israelites by god is used to determine paternity. If the father is not the husband, “her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.” A fetus that is not the result of union between husband and wife, is sentenced to die. See, a bastard fetus is clearly of no value to god.

Did no one else think of Jesus’ fate, had Joseph taken this super scientific paternity test?

In Genesis 38:24 god’s law states that if a woman is to be executed, and she happens to be pregnant, there is no need to wait for her baby to be born. The fetus is counted as part of the mother, and so its fate is to be burned to death in its mother’s womb.

It is irrational to let an ancient book rule our lives. This is the morality of a civilization who lived two thousand years ago. These are the people who thought The Earth was flat. We live in a privileged time, with so many scientific discoveries, and the technology that has allowed us to see beyond what we ever imagined, and thanks to these, we now understand the Universe and how it works — things that not too long ago were thought impossible.

Humanity hasn’t come this far to let the ignorance from two thousand years ago be the guide by which we make our laws. Would you consider these biblical laws as acceptable punishment in the modern world? If your answer to that question is “yes,” then, would it be okay if I suggest you step away from this computer, stay away from my laws, and and go live with The Amish*?

(*) No offense to The Amish.

Related articles

Share this:

Like this:

11 Responses to How much for your baby?

I found this interesting that you would specify that “even if you are a Christian, you probably didn’t know the following:” The truth is that you seem to be the one who is unaware. These are hardly new arguments—any Christian that doesn’t have their head in the sand has not only heard these arguments, but is aware of why they are very poor arguments.

Like—for example—you mentioned Exodus 21:22-23. The version you quoted (NIV) is a fine translation for what it is—a thought for thought translation. This kind of translation, by it’s nature, brings in much of the translators understanding-where a more word for word translation is more accurate in such things:

Exo 21:22-23 ESV “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. (23) But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life,

The phrase “come out” is by far more accurate. The word does not imply miscarriage, but delivery. The word is used almost 1500 times in the Old Testament—with a definition of “to go out, come out, exit, go forth.” (Brown Driver Brigg’s Hebrew Definitions)

A couple examples of this word are:

Gen 1:24 ESV And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds–livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so.

2Ki 20:18 ESV And some of your own sons, who shall be born to you, shall be taken away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.”

The second one, especially, is quite humorous given your definition.

When you read Ex 21:22-23 in context—it is quite clear. If the striking causes the child to be delivered, but there is no harm (to mother or child) then there is a fine. If there is harm (the mother or child dies) then the guilty person is treated as a murderer.

Leviticus 27:6 is quite hilarious in this context. The price is referring to redemption from a vow for service in the sanctuary—not for a life. Non-Levites were not allowed to work in the temple, so a person could make a vow for himself or his family and be freed from that service by paying the fee.

Numbers 5 is a curse against a woman for adultery (a capital offense at the time) which means that it would have no bearing on the conception of Jesus. Notice the wording of verse 19:

Num 5:19 ESV Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, and if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while you were under your husband’s authority, be free from this water of bitterness that brings the curse.

The “miscarriage” is ,more accurately, her “thigh would rot”. (Probably a euphemism for reproductive organs). While this doesn’t necessarily rule out miscarriage, the contrast with the next verse (which states that the innocent woman will be able to conceive children) would point this more to producing sterility—which was considered a great curse on women of that culture.

This was a curse brought upon a guilty woman—not an illegitimate child.

Genesis 38:24 is prior to God’s Law being given (which starts in Exodus) and is merely a record of Judah’s judgment of correct punishment (an extra harsh judgment considering his own guilt). It is not a prescription for proper action, but a record of human action.

“Women deserve the right to do as they please with their bodies” is all you need to say.

Anyone can use the bible to justify any stance. You’ve proven that with your use of scripture just as folwn did with his refutation. That’s the problem with a poorly translated and extremely vague set of ancient writing that has been rewritten and reinterpreted as poetry. It’s better to leave the bible to the religious and keep it out of social and political arguments entirely. If they want to read it to gain inspiration or to give themselves support for their own stance then fine. It makes no impression on me though.

But, do women have the right to end the life of another (innocent) human being? That is an entirely different matter.

As far as using the Bible to justify any stance–that can only be done by taking passages out of context, distorting clear meaning of words, and not allowing the Bible to define it’s own terms (much like we saw in Monick’s post). I am not going to say that there is no disagreement among people who genuinely try to understand the Bible (even the Apostle Peter said that there were some things that were hard to understand–incidentally, in the same verse, he also refers to this very situation that I am talking about: “…which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction”. (2Pet 3:16)). The point is that the basic tenants of the Christian faith are clearly laid out in the Bible. There are poor translations of the Bible for sure (some heretical ones even), but that does not mean that we are ignorant as to what it said. There are a few places where we are not 100% positive as to which variant reading is the correct one, but no fundamental Christian doctrine relies on a variant reading. The Bible was inerrant in the originals and reliable in the documents that we now have.

folwm: I am not doubting or discounting your knowledge of scripture, but I have to ask:

You seem so bright and well-educated, how can you cling to such myths?

The vast majority of Christianity is a direct rip-off of Egyptian mythology, and most Christian celebrations have been created or moved to entice (then) pagan followers into believing.

1. Horus born of a virgin. Jesus born of a virgin.

2. The foster father of Horus was Seb or Seph. Jesus was fostered by Joseph.

3. Horus was of royal descent. Jesus was of royal descent.

4. Horus birth accompanied by three solar deities [star gazers] who followed by the morning star of Sirius bearing gifts. Jesus birth accompanied by three wise men [Zoroastrian star gazers] who followed by a star “in the east” bearing gifts.

5. The birth of Horus announced by angels. The birth of Jesus announced by angels.

6. Herut tried to murder the infant Horus. Herod slaughtered every first born in an attempt to kill Jesus the forthcoming messiah.

7. Horus is baptized at age 30 by Anup the Baptiser at a river. Jesus is baptized at age 30 by John the Baptist at a river.

8. Horus resists temptation by the evil Sut [Sut was to be the precursor for the Hebrew Satan] on a high mountain. Jesus resists temptation by Satan on a high mountain.

9. Horus had 12 followers. Jesus had 12 disciples.

10. Horus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water. Jesus performed miracles like healing the sick and walking on water.

11. Horus raised someone from the grave [his father Osiris] Jesus raised Lazarus [notice the name similarity] from the grave. Lazarus is short for Elasarus – the “us” on the end is romanized. Elasarus was derived from “El-Asar” which was the name given to Osiris.

12. Horus was buried and resurrected in the city of Anu. The place Bethany mentioned in John was a derivative of the words “Bet” and “Anu” which translates “the house of Anu”. The ‘y’ on the end of bethany is interchangeable with the letter ‘u’.

13. Horus was killed by crucifixtion. Jesus was crucified.

14. Horus was accompanied by two thieves at the crucifixtion. Jesus was crucified with two thieves.

15. Horus was buried in a tomb at Anu. Jesus was buried in a tomb located in Bethany [Bet-Anu].

16. Horus was resurrected after 3 days. Jesus was “said” to resurrected after over a period of three days.

17. The resurrection of Horus was announced by three women. The resurrection of Jesus was announced by three women.

18. Horus was given the titel KRST which means “anointed one” Jesus was given the title Christ [Christos] meaning “anointed one”

The last place to look for guidance on ethics and morality is the bible. It doesn’t matter which translation you’re talking about. I’ll talk about whether abortion is murder or not, but only if you leave god out of it.

But, do women have the right to end the life of another (innocent) human being? That is an entirely different matter.

There is no human being but the woman. We’re talking about a zygote, a cluster of cells. Not a human being.

Anyway that particular argument is beside the point. A woman who terminates a pregnancy isn’t killing a baby, she’s no longer supporting a pregnancy with her body. This is where the pro-life and pro-choice arguments always fall down. Pro-life argue for the life of the fetus and ignore the life of the woman. All their arguments are about the potential baby’s life. The pro-choice side argues for the rights of the woman. They aren’t arguing about the same thing and so can’t ever come to some sort of accommodation or middle ground.

As far as using the Bible to justify any stance–that can only be done by taking passages out of context, distorting clear meaning of words, and not allowing the Bible to define it’s own terms (much like we saw in Monick’s post).

I agree and unfortunately that is all too often the case with politicians or preachers seeking to score points for themselves. Even with amateurs, atheist and theist both, we see this same distortion. To argue over the interpretation of bible verses to me is something that should only happen after both sides have agreed that it is worth using. I’m sure that Christians in general see it as compelling but for me it is of no more value that using the Odyssey or The Canterbury Tales to justify my arguments. I can use Lord of the Rings to argue against war or Pride and Prejudice to argue against the suppression of women but really what’s the point. These aren’t books of factual evidence or philosophy and their arguments only mean something to someone who is inspired by them. The bible books are the same.

The point is that the basic tenants of the Christian faith are clearly laid out in the Bible.

That must be why there is one single, unified Christian faith rather than thousands of competing sects. No, I do not agree with this.

The Bible was inerrant in the originals and reliable in the documents that we now have.

Let’s just say that I don’t agree with you on this list of “copycat” traits. Here is part of something I had put together when dealing with the Zietgeist movie:

“The manner of Horus’ conception did not involve a virginal conception. Before his
birth, his father Osiris was dismembered by Set into fourteen parts, which were
dispersed throughout Egypt (which is why there are so many tombs for Osiris to be
found in Egypt). Osiris’ wife, Isis, gathered the parts and pieced them together,
except for Osiris’ phallus, which she could not locate, for Set threw it into a river and
it was eaten by a fish. Isis then fashioned a phallus for him and by drawing the seed from the body of her dead husband, she conceived Horus. A hymn within Plutarch’s account of the Horus myth contains the following description of Horus’ conception: “[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [phallus] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew from him his essence [sperm], and she made from them an heir [Horus].”

That is not virginal conception, since virgin birth necessitates the lack of sexual
union and clearly Horus was born from the essence, or seed, of the revived Osiris. It can also not be assumed that Isis was a virgin at the time of Horus’ conception, since she had been married to Osiris prior to the moment of Horus’ conception. Also, the last line in the first hymn found in the Book of the Dead, an ancient Egyptian religious text believed to have been a guide for the deceased in their journey through the Underworld, states, “The Company of the gods rejoiced at the coming of Horus, the son of Osiris, whose heart was firm, the triumphant, the son of Isis, the heir of Osiris.“ In his efforts to seek the opinion of modern scholarship, Ward Gasque, President of the Pacific Association for Theological Studies, contacted twenty contemporary
Egyptologists, asking them whether or not Horus was virgin-born. The ten who responded were all in agreement that there is no indication within the ancient texts that Horus was virgin-born.”

I am equally skeptical of most of the things on your list. When I look at information written about Horus, Isis, and Osiris (at least information not put out from someone trying to make a point–both sides have a tendency to stretch things a bit in order to make their case) I can find no mention of most of those things.

That being said, even if all of them were truly said of Horus that does not make the Jesus account false. For example, Futility, or the Wreck of the Titan was a novel written about a shipwreck. The details of the sinking of the “Titan” are strangely similar to the sinking of the “Titanic”.

Both were considered unsinkable.
The Titanic was the largest luxury liner afloat, The Titan was the largest craft afloat
They were of similar proportions
Both had a capacity of 3000 people
Both carried less than half the lifeboats required for this number of people
Both sunk on an April night
Both sunk 400 miles off the coast of Newfoundland
Both struck an iceberg on the starboard side while moving at similar speeds (25 vs. 22.5 knots)
Both of them had over half of their passengers die

The unusual thing is that this novel was written in 1898 (14 years before the Titanic sank)

By the “copycat” reasoning, the Titanic never sank (or existed for that matter) and was merely a repeat of a myth.

♣ About me

I am Monica Salcedo McGee, known for being a fiercely outspoken atheist, on this site, and on Twitter and Google Plus. I am a humanist, a freethinker, a rationalist, and an egalitarian. I am married to Joshua McGee, (@McGeekiest). I also occasionally write over at gawd.me.

♣ I am…

I am a secular humanist. I rely on reason to understand the world, and compassion guides my effort to apply my knowledge ethically. I behave decently to everyone without any expectation of rewards or punishment after I'm dead.